A Word In Edgewise: Cui Bono, Me or Thee?

Whether or not you’ve ever studied a classical language, many, from childhood, are intuitively attuned to knowledge passed through various lands and languages, filtered through centuries and the great minds of Cicero, Erasmus and Yogi Berra.

It was obvious to me as a kid, long before I learned the formal phrase in prep school Latin, that when examining requests of others — friends, siblings, classmates, teachers, parents — I should consider two words: “Who benefits?”

“Cui bono,” popularized by Roman statesman Cicero, quoting an even earlier consul, in Latin means just that. While often used to determine motive in crime detection, it’s equally useful when assessing requests/demands from others.

A crime scene is more cut-and-dried, since one side of the question includes someone aggrieved or deceased. Uncle Fred, let’s say, falls overboard and drowns at a family gathering aboard his luxury yacht, “The Last Laugh.” A simple drowning is ruled out when it’s revealed his ankle was attached to an anchor. Who stands closest to inheriting his Paris pied-à-terre, his 1932 Duesenberg and the yacht?

Most of us are not lumbered with yachts, Duesenbergs, or Paris digs, so the more quotidian, less criminal application of “cui bono” is usually a pedestrian exercise of asking, “Whoa, why am I the one always chauffeuring, loaning cash and picking up the dinner tab?”  

These “profit balances,” for lack of a better term, are usually: “I’ll feed your cat while you’re in Antigua, and you’ll tend my Fluffy while I’m in Montréal next month.” The “cui bono” factor is clear and needn’t be exactly commensurate to the penny or minute. But suppose there comes an imbalance? Friend Clyde can now afford several trips a year, while you’re limited to one? That situation can still be handled if Clyde acknowledges the imbalance and offers monetary compensation or performs other favors on your behalf.

Aggressions and imbalances with intent also accrue in everyday situations; we acquiesce to someone’s frequent demands because we’re flattered, made to feel important because that person has let us do something for them (“They must really like me!”), or we ourselves impose on another friend or relative because we know they look up to us and will be thrilled to help. So, we take advantage. (This side of the equation is harder to admit, and requires a more advanced level of self-examination.)

Must there always be a “bono”? Our zero-sum society admires a laurel-browed victor, raised fist clenching a gilded trophy. And yes, in most any endeavor, there’s one who benefits. That’s certainly what’s mostly paraded on the pages and screens and devices today; what’s less well received are pleas for equity, or “bono” for all. At least enough bono for all to be fed and housed. But here we veer too far into the political arena, a territory morphing more into a singularity than a something-for-everyone, so we won’t go there today.

My original thought for this essay was to suggest that in any appeal from one individual to another, speaker A will want something from listener B, and that it behooves B to ask himself, “Cui bono?” If the answer isn’t “B,” then B, at the very minimum, should reply simply, “I’ll think that over and get back to you.”